m      

A  = 

A| 

CO 

cr. 

0  5 

=t  JD 

ID 

4  = 

=  o 

0  = 

6  ^ 

^^=  CD 

6  = 

5  — 

■^^B    1 

—i 

n     ""^^ 

■!■■    -■       -< 

5 

THE  INHUMANITY  OF  SOCIALISM 


THE  INHUMANITY 
OF  SOCIALISM 

THE  CASE  AGAINST 
SOCIALISM  &  A  CRITIQUE  OF  SOCIALISM 

TWO  PAPERS,  THE  FIRST 

READ  BEFORE  THE  LEAGUE  OF 

THE  REPUBLIC  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF 

CALIFORNIA,  DECEMBER  THE  FIFTH, 

NINETEEN  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTEEN, 

AND  THE  SECOND  READ  BEFORE 

THE  RUSKIN  CLUB  OF  OAKLAND, 

CALIFORNIA,  SOME  YEARS 

EARLIER  BY 

EDWARD  F.^DAMS 


PAUL  ELDER  AND  COMPANY 
PUBLISHERS  •  SAN  FRANCISCO 


Copyright,  1913 
By  Paul  Elder  and  Company 

San  Francisco 

Copyright,  1905 
By  Paul  Elder  and  Company 

San  Francisco 


•   '  .'\ 


A3/ 


'And  finally,  let  each  of  us  accord- 
ing' to  his  ability  and  opportunity 
practice  and  inculcate  respect  for 
the  lorn,  the  maintenance  of  order, 
regard  for  the  rights  of  others, 
admiration  for  the  successful,  sym- 
pathy with  the  unfortunate,  charity 
for  all,  hope  for  humanity,  joy  in 
the  simple  life  and  contentment 
therewith.'* 


LU 

LU 


;M>i982 


Foreword 

One  might  write  continuously  while  he  lived 
for  or  against  Socialism  and  yet  at  the  end  of  a 
long  and  misspent  life  have  said  nothing  that 
others  had  not  said  before  him. 

Nevertheless,  new  generations  come  on  and 
have  to  learn  about  Socialism  as  they  learn  about 
other  things,  for  there  always  have  been  and 
always  will  be  Socialists.  It  is  a  habit  of  mind 
which  becomes  Jivced  in  a  certain  number  of  each 
generation;  and  succeeding  generations  seem  to 
prefer  fresh  statements  of  the  theory  to  the  study 
of  the  ancient  leasts.  Besides^  Socialistic  endeavor, 
while  its  ultimate  object  in  all  ages  is  the  same, 
assumes  different  forms  at  different  periods  and 
is  best  dealt  with  in  terms  of  the  day. 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  of  its  in- 
humanity; because  it  saps  the  vitality  of  the 
human  race  which  has  no  vitality  to  spare;  be- 
cause it  lulls  to  indolence  those  who  must  struggle 
to  survive;  because  the  theories  of  good  men  who 
are  enthralled  by  its  delusions  are  made  the  ex- 
cuse of  the  wicked  who  would  rather  plunder 
than  work;  because  it  stops  enterprise,  promotes 
laziness,  exalts  inefficiency,  inspires  hatred, 
checks  production,  assures  waste  and  instills  into 
the  souls  of  the  unfortunate  and  the  weak  hopes 
impossible  of  fruition  whose  inevitable  blasting 
will  add  to  the  bitterness  of  their  lot. 


F'oreword 

Some  years  ago  I  was  invited  to  dine  with 
and  address  a  charming  group  of  Socialists  com- 
prising the  Bus  kin  Club  of  Oakland.  We  had 
a  joyful  evening  and  I  read  to  them '  'A  Critique 
of  Socialism ' '  which  forms  the  second  part  of  this 
volume .  It  was  published  in  1905  by  Paul  Elder 
and  Company  J  but  almost  the  entire  edition  was 
burned  in  our  great  fire  of  1906.  As  there  are 
still  inquiries  for  it,  it  is  thought  best  to  republish 
it.  Obviously  it  was  primarily  intended  to  amuse 
my  hosts f  but  there  is  some  sense  in  it. 

A  few  months  ago  I  was  asked  to  present 
' '  The  Case  Against  Socialism ' '  to  the  League 
of  the  Republic,  an  organization  within  the  stu- 
dent body  of  the  University  of  California,  it  be- 
ing the  last  of  a  series  in  which  a  member  of 
the  Faculty  of  Stanford  University  and  a  much 
respected  Socialist  of  the  State  took  part,  neither 
of  whom,  much  to  my  regret,  was  I  able  to  hear. 
What  I  said  seemed  to  please  some  of  the  more 
vigorous  non- Socialists  present  who  thought  it 
should  be  printed.  Those  who  prefer  pleasant 
reading  should  skip  the  "Case" and  read  the 
'  'Critique. ' '  Edward  F.  Adams 

San  Francisco,  June 
Nineteen  hundred  and  thirteen 


VI 


THE  CASE  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


THE  CASE  AGAINST 
SOCIALISM 

THE  postponement  of  this  address, 
which  was  to  have  been  delivered  two 
weeks  ago,  was  a  real  disappoint- 
ment to  me  for  I  did  not  then  know 
that  another  opportunity  would  be  arranged. 
As  one  approaches  maturity,  it  becomes  a  joy 
to  talk  to  a  group  of  young  people  in  the  light 
of  whose  pleasant  faces  one  seems  to  renew  his 
own  youth.  Youth  is  the  most  precious  thing 
there  is- it  knows  so  little  it  never  worries. 

It  is  difficult  for  me  to  be  here  at  this  hour 
of  the  day  and  it  has  been  impossible  for  me 
to  hear  those  who  have  preceded  me  in  this 
course.  What  I  have  to  say  may  therefore  have 
too  little  relation  to  what  has  been  presented 
from  other  points  of  view  to  be  satisfactory  in 
what  seems  to  have  been  designed  as  a  debate. 
Nor  have  I,  in  recent  years,  read  much  Social- 
istic or  anti-Socialistic  literature  of  which  the 
world  is  full.  From  my  point  of  view,  as  will 
presently  be  seen,  perusal  of  this  literature 
would  be  a  waste  of  time  for  none  of  it  that  I 
have  seen  or  heard  of  discusses  what  seems  to 
me  essential,  but  in  saying  this  I  must  not  be 

[3] 


>i 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

understood  as  disparaging  either  the  sincerity 
or  the  ability  of  writers  on  this  subject. 

When  I  was  more  or  less  familiar  with  So- 
cialistic controversy  the  Socialistic  propaganda 
was  devoted  in  different  countries  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  immediate  program  which  in 
the  respedlive  countries  was  considered  the  es- 
sential thing  to  be  done  next,  very  little  being 
said  about  the  ultimate  end  which  it  was  hoped 
to  reach  in  due  time.  Thus  it  happened  that 
in  some  countries  what  was  called  the  Social- 
istic agitation  was  diredted  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  what  was  already  established  by  non- 
Socialists  in  other  countries.  That  is  doubtless 
so  still.  Those  discussions  do  not  interest  me 
and  I  have  not  followed  them  and  shall  not  dis- 
cuss any  of  them  here.  I  shall  consider  only  the 
ultimate  aims  of  theoretical  Socialism  and 
whether  if  accomplished  they  probably  would 
or  would  not  make  for  the  general  welfare  and 
especially  for  the  welfare  of  the  least  efficient. 

The  ultimate  aim  of  Socialism  is  the  nation- 
alization of  all  land,  industry,  transportation, 
distribution  and  finance  and  their  colledlive 
administration  for  the  common  good  as  a  gov- 
ernmental fun6tion  and  under  a  popular  gov- 
ernment. It  involves  the  abolition  of  private 
profit,  rent  and  interest  and  especially  excludes 
the  possibility  of  private  profit  by  increase  of 
values  resulting  from  increase  or  concentra- 


'to 


[4] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

tion  of  population.  The  majority  of  Socialists 
would  reach  this  end  gradually,  by  succes- 
sive steps,  and  with  compensation  to  existing 
owners.  A  violent  minority  would  reach  it 
per  saltum,  by  bloodshed  if  necessary,  and  by 
confiscation -"expropriation"  they  call  it.  All 
alike  condu6l  their  propaganda  by  endeavor- 
ing to  create  or  accentuate  the  class  conscious- 
ness of  manual  workers  who  constitute  the 
majority  of  human  beings  and  whose  condition, 
it  is  insisted,  would  be  improved  under  a  Social- 
istic regime.  The  violent  wing  promotes  not 
merely  class  consciousness  but  class  hatred. 

I  have  no  time  to  split  hairs  in  this  discus- 
sion and  it  may  be  assumed  that  I  understand 
that  Socialists  do  not  expe6l  to  absolutely  con- 
trol all  personal  activity  but  would  leave  all 
persons  free  to  pursue  any  vocation  which  they 
might  desire  and  to  have  and  hold  whatever 
they  may  acquire  by  personal  a6livity  and  en- 
terprise so  only  that  they  make  no  profit  on  the 
work  of  another  or  absorb  for  their  own  use 
any  gift  of  Nature.  No  Socialist  that  I  know 
of  has  attempted  to  draw  the  exa6t  line  be- 
tween a6livities  to  be  wholly  absorbed  by  the 
State  and  those  which  would  be  left  to  private 
enterprise.  No  wise  Socialist  I  think-if  there 
are  wise  Socialists-would  attempt  to  draw  such 
a  line  at  present.  There  is  a  certain  vagueness 
in  the  Socialists'  presentation  of  their  case. 

[5] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

And  before  we  proceed  further  let  us  get 
rid  of  the  intelledlual  fog  which  envelops  and 
shelters  the  advocates  of  Socialism.  It  is  the  fog 
of  humanitarianism.  I  see  and  hear  no  ad- 
vocacy of  Socialism  whose  burden  is  not  the 
uplift  of  humanity.  Now,  humanitarianism  is 
perhaps  the  most  beautiful  thingthere  is.  There 
is  no  more  ennobling  and  inspiring  sentiment 
than  desire  for  the  uplift  of  our  fellowmen ;  but 
it  has  no  legitimate  place  in  the  discussion  of 
Socialism.  For  an  advocate  of  Socialism  to  even 
refer,  in  presenting  his  case,  to  humanitarian 
sentiment  is  to  that'extent  to  beg  the  question. 

For  if  Socialism  would  improve  the  lot  of 
mankind,  or  of  the  major  portion  of  it,  that 
settles  the  whole  matter.  The  quicker  we  get 
to  it  the  better.  Opponents  of  Socialism  insist 
that  it  would  benefit  nobody,  and  that  as  to  the 
least  efficient  in  whose  behalf  Socialistic  doc- 
trines are  especially  urged,  it  would  be  deadly. 
As  to  the  strong  or  the  fairly  efficient  we  need 
not  concern  ourselves.  They  will  get  on  anyhow. 
What  it  is  important  to  consider  is  the  prob- 
able condition  of  the  less  efficient,  and  especial- 
ly the  submerged  class,  under  a  Socialist  regime. 
And  consideration  will  be  useful  only  if  it  is 
in  cold  blood,  absolutely  without  sentiment,  and 
especially  without  even  sub-conscious  assump- 
tion or  imagination  that  the  condition  of  the 
unfortunate,  or  less  fortunate,  would  or  would 

[6] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

not  be  improved  by  Socialism,  or  whether  man- 
kind can  or  cannot  be  made  happier  by  attempts 
to  control  economic  conditions  by  interference 
with  the  natural  working  out  of  economic  re- 
sults as  the  resultant  of  opposing  pressure  of 
individual  interests.  And  do  not  call  me  a  brute 
if  I  reach  the  conclusion  that  human  selfishness 
is  the  hope  of  the  race. 

Because  selfishness  inspires  to  energetic  ac- 
tion which  means  the  largest  possible  aggregate 
produ6lion  which  is  the  first  essential  prerequi- 
site to  abundance  for  all.  It  is  useless  to  talk 
about  better  distribution  until  the  commodities 
exist  to  be  distributed.  And  there  is  no  other 
such  spur  to  produ6lion  as  the  expe6lation  of 
personal  profit.  The  pieceworker  with  more  sat- 
isfa6lion  to  himself  and  profit  to  the  world  will 
produce  far  more  than  he  would  turn  out  un- 
der a  daily  wage  if  his  earnings  are  thereby 
increased.  And  there  are  no  others  who  give 
so  little  for  what  they  receive  as  those  who 
work  for  the  public. 

The  first  count  in  the  case  against  Socialism 
is  that  by  making  the  majority  of  workers 
public  servants  without  the  stimulus  of  selfish- 
ness it  would  increase  human  misery  by  reduc- 
ing the  aggregate  of  produ6lion  and  therefore 
the  possible  per  capita  consumption. 

That,  however,  is  on  the  surface.  Let  us  bore 
a  little  deeper  toward  the  core  of  the  subje6l. 

[7] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

It  is  a  fundamental  fallacy  of  Socialism  that 
all  gain  is  the  result  of  Labor  and  that  therefore 
all  gain  belongs  to  Labor-the  term  "Labor" 
in  practice  meaning  the  great  majority  of  labor- 
ers who  are  manual  workers.* 

Of  course  Labor  is  essential  to  produ6lion- 
so  is  Capital,  which  we  shall  come  to  later- and 
as  between  two  things,  both  essential,  it  is  per- 
haps impossible  to  conceive  of  one  or  the  other 
as  superior. 

But  there  is  another  element,  also  essential, 
but  in  a  class  so  much  above  the  other  two  es- 
sential elements,  that  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  without  it  there  could  be  no  produ6lion 
adequate  to  sustain  for  more  than  a  brief  time 
any  great  population.  And  that  element  is 
Brains.  It  is  not  to  Labor  but  to  the  human  in- 
telledl  as  developed  in  the  exceptional  man 
that  we  owe  all  that  exists,  outside  of  Nature, 
which  we  count  valuable,  and  the  ability  to  so 
use  the  resources  of  Nature  as  to  enable  man- 
kind to  live.  If  produ6ls  were  to  be  divided 
among  mankind  so  that  each  should  receive 
according  to  his  contribution  to  the  possibili- 
ties of  produ6lion,  after  the  exceptional  men 
had  received  their  just  dues,  there  would  be 
very  little  left  for  the  rest  of  us.  When  Euro- 
pean races  first  discovered  this  continent  it 
probably  supported  less  than  one  million  souls, 
and  the  number  was  not  increasing.  That  it 

*  See  Note  page  10.  r  o  1 

[8  J 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

will  ultimately  support  some  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions is  due  to  the  dealings  of  the  human  intel- 
le6l  with  Nature.  Brains  do  not  get,  do  not 
ask,  do  not  expe6l  and  could  not  use  what  would 
rightfully  come  to  them. 

But  intelle6ls  vary  in  chara6ler  and  useful- 
ness, and  let  us  try  by  differentiation  and  elim- 
ination to  isolate  and  consider  those  particular 
classes  of  intelle6l  whose  adlivities  bear  most 
dire6lly  on  the  questions  raised  by  Socialistic 
theory.  The  chiefs  are  the  devotees  of  pure 
science-the  Galileos,  the  Newtons,the  Pasteurs, 
the  Faradays,the  Kelvins,  and  the  innumerable 
company  of  those  like  them,  many  known  but 
most  unknown,  who  spend  their  days  and 
nights  in  the  search  for  truth.  They  deserve  and 
get  the  greatest  of  rewards  which  is  the  respedl 
and  admiration  of  their  fellowman.  As  for  ma- 
terial things,  they  desire  and  get  very  little. 
Following  them  are  the  magnates  of  applied 
science,  the  Watts,  the  Stephensons,  the  Bells, 
the  Edisons,  and  their  like,  who  apply  to  bene- 
ficial use  the  discoveries  of  the  great  lights  of 
pure  science  often  with  prodigious  material 
profit  to  themselves.  The  patent  offices  know 
them  all,  big  and  little.  They  perform  a  mag- 
nificent service,  are  highly  esteemed  in  their 
day  and  generation  and  their  material  rewards 
are  great.  And  upon  the  whole  the  world  does 
not  grudge  them  what  they  get. 

[9] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

But  there  are  others.  Next  after  the  mag- 
nates of  applied  science  in  public  estimation, 
but  of  equal  economic  importance,!  would  place 
the  Captains  of  Industry.  Without  their  grasp 
of  human  necessity  and  desire  and  their  organ- 
izing and  diredling  ability.  Labor  would  grope 
blindly  in  the  dark  by  wasteful  methods  to  the 
produ6lion  of  insufficient  quantities  of  unde- 
sirable produ6ls.  The  Marxian*  conception  of 
an  economic  surplus  wrongfully  withheld  from 
Labor  which  produces  it  is  the  disordered  fancy 
of  a  fine  intelle6l  hopelessly  warped  by  the  con- 
templation of  human  misery  and  humanitarian 
sympathy  with  human  distress.  All  economic 
discussion  is  worthless  if  tainted  by  human 
sympathy.  The  surplus  value  in  produ6lion  is 
trifling  and  seems  large  only  because  concen- 
trated in  comparatively  few  hands.  The  surplus 
of  ages  is  concentrated  in  the  stru6lures  which 
we  see  all  about  us,  and  in  the  commodities 
ready  or  partly  ready  for  consumption  and 
which  will  disappear  in  a  short  time.  The  an- 

*The  accuracy  of  this  reference  was  challenged  by  a  young 
Socialist,  after  the  address.  I  have  not  read  Capital  for  many  j'ears 
but  think  I  cannot  be  far  wrong  in  my  statement  and,  in  any  case, 
the  conception  as  stated,  whether  accurately  Marxian  or  not,  is 
the  conception  of  aU  who  give  vitality  to  Socialism  in  this  country. 
Hence,  I  do  not  take  the  time  to  verify  my  recollection.  I  am  a 
busy  man  and  it  is  no  light  thing  to  tackle  Capital  with  intent  to 
extract  its  precise  meaning.  Multitudes  who  have  tried  it  have 
failed.  Perhaps  I  was  one  of  them.  Of  course  Marx  recognized 
the  value  of  Labor  other  than  manual,  but  his  appeal  was  to 
manual  workers  and  it  is  mainly  they  who  have  responded. 

[10] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

nual  accretions  are  small  for  an  enormous 
amount  of  human  effort  is  wastefully  diredled. 
That  more  effort  is  not  wasted  is  due  to  the 
increasing  necessities  of  an  increasing  popula- 
tion stimulating  the  most  competent  by  the 
hope  of  personal  gain  to  provide  new  means 
and  new  methods  whereby  those  necessities  may 
be  served.  No  stimulus  other  than  the  hope  of 
personal  gain  has  ever  been  found  effedlive  to 
inspire  this  effort,  or  make  it  successful.  Gov- 
ernment administration  invents  nothing.  It 
copies  tardily  and  administers  wastefully.  Di- 
re6lion  falls  to  those  who  compete  successfully 
in  talk  not  to  those  who  demonstrate  resource- 
fulness and  masterfulness  in  forseeing  human 
requirements,  utilizing  available  means  for  sup- 
plying them,  and  effe6liveness  in  least  waste- 
fully  diredling  labor  in  the  use  of  these  means. 
/  Our  Captains  of  Industry  are  those  who  for 
the  most  part  starting  life  with  nothing  but  a 
sound  mind  in  a  strong  body  have  risen  to  the 
dire6lion  of  great  afiiiirs  through  unrestricted 
opportunity  to  strenuously  compete  through 
long  hours  of  hard  labor  and  the  mental  and 
bodily  strength  to  endure  it.  There  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  any  other  method  than  the 
same  strenuous  and  unrestridled  competition 
would  produce  men  equal  to  such  responsibil- 
ities, or  that  any  inspiration  but  the  hope  of 
personal  gain  would  induce  such  effort.   The 

[n] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

contention  that  the  honor  of  dire6lion  and  the 
applause  of  the  multitude  would  incite  to  the 
necessary  competition  is  not  sound.  In  the  first 
place  long  years  of  inconspicuous  service  but 
with  the  same  eager  effort  are  essential  prelim- 
inaries to  the  great  places  which  but  few  can 
reach,  and  secondly  the  honor  would  go  as  it  does 
now  in  public  affairs,  not  to  the  man  efficient 
in  industry,  but  to  the  man  efficient  in  talk. 
The  one  stimulus  to  personal  exertion  which 
Nature  supplies,  and  the  only  stimulus  which 
operates  powerfully,  and  universally  and  con- 
tinuously is  the  desire  of  personal  gain  coupled 
with  the  instin6l  for  constru6lion  and  accom- 
plishment. Since  the  desire  is  for  the  largest 
possible  produ6lion  it  is  folly  to  try  to  with- 
draw that  stimulus  and  substitute  an  emotion 
which,  however  powerful  in  a  few  persons  and 
for  uncertain  periods,  operates  most  strongly 
on  those  industrially  least  capable. 

For  I  venture  the  assertion  that  there  is  not 
now  and  never  has  been  among  Socialists  a 
single  person  who  has  demonstrated  the  ability 
to  so  direct  the  Labor  of  any  considerable  num- 
ber of  men  either  in  production  or  distribution 
that  the  aggregate  of  yearly  accomplishment 
at  market  value  is  as  great  as  the  aggregate 
cost  at  current  wages. 

The  second  count  in  the  indi6lment  of  So- 
cialism, therefore,  is  that  for  lack  of  the  sole 

[12] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

stimulus  which  Nature  supplies,  and  the  lack 
of  opportunity  under  a  system  of  equal  tasks, 
with  ideals  of  leisure,  diredlion  of  production 
and  exchange  under  a  Socialistic  regime  would 
be  so  much  less  efficient  than  now  that  the  ag- 
gregate waste  would  be  far  greater  than  that 
of  the  parasitism  which  has  always  existed  in 
competitive  Society. 

A  social  parasite  is  a  person  whose  contri- 
bution to  the  social  produ6l  is  less  than  the 
cost  of  his  or  her  keep.  If  obviously  defe6live 
we  shall,  at  least  for  the  present,  let  humanity 
override  the  economic  instindl  which  suggests 
their  removal-an  instindl  which  has  effedlively 
operated  in  some  overcrowded  communities- 
and  take  care  of  them.  But  the  world  has  no 
use  for  the  able-bodied  parasite  who  during  his 
or  her  working  period  of  life  does  not  contrib- 
ute to  the  social  dividend  by  personal  exertion 
sufficient  to  pay  for  the  kind  of  life  which  has 
been  led.  In  opposing  Socialism  I  am  not  de- 
fending parasitism.  That  can  be  got  rid  of 
when  it  becomes  worth  while  and  will  be.  But 
to  jump  out  of  parasitism  into  Socialism  would 
be  jumping  out  of  the  frying-pan  into  the  fire. 
And  we  should  have  parasites  still. 

So  much  for  the  Captains  of  Industry  whom 
we  need.  But  there  is  still  another  class  which 
could  not  exist  in  the  Socialistic  state,  and 
which  a  great  part  of  mankind  holds  in  pro- 

[13] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

found  disesteem,  but  which  is  essential  never- 
theless. This  is  the  man  with  the  instin6l  of 
accumulation  and  whom  we  stigmatize  as  the 
"Capitalist"-the  man  who  grasps  what  is  with- 
in reach  and  holds  it ;  who  often  gets  the  main 
profits  of  the  inventions  of  the  inventor ;  who 
forsees  the  future  value  of  unused  gifts  of  Na- 
ture and  acquires  them  while  they  can  be  got 
cheap ;  who  combines  with  others  like  him  to 
control  everything  controlable  and  makes  man- 
kind pay  roundly  when  it  wants  it.  He  is  really 
the  man  to  whom  mankind  is  most  indebted  of 
all  for  without  his  beneficent  if  execrated  ser- 
vice, in  vain  would  the  scientist  toil  in  his  labora- 
tory, the  inventor  struggle  through  poverty  to 
perfedl  his  machine,  the  Captain  of  Industry 
conceive  great  accomplishment, and  the  laborer 
delve  and  grind  at  his  daily  task.  The  one 
supremely  useful  man  is  he  who  accumulates 
and  holds. 

If  you  say  that  this  is  an  unlovely  person 
the  answer  is  that  sometimes'^^he  is  and  some- 
times he  is  not.  If  you  say  he  is  selfish  the 
reply  is  that  we  are  all  selfish -he  merely  being 
able  to  make  his  selfishness  effedlive.  If  you 
say  he  accumulates  by  devious  ways  and  by 
grinding  the  face  of  the  poor  the  reply  is  that 
sometimes  he  does  and  sometimes  he  does  not. 
In  these  human  aspe6ls  he  is  about  like  the 
rest  of  us.  He  it  is  who  makes  happiness  and 
helpfulness  possible. 

[14] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

But  to  these  and  all  other  assaults  upon  the 
chara6ler  and  methods  of  the  accumulating 
man  there  is  one  general  reply  and  that  is  that 
from  the  economic  standpoint  they  are  of  no 
consequence  whatever.  It  makes  no  economic 
difference  what  he  is  or  what  he  does  so  only 
that  he  performs  his  accumulating  office. 

The  one  essential  fa6l  is  that  he  assembles 
within  his  grasp  the  savings  of  Society,  pre- 
vents their  dissipation  in  personal  indulgence, 
applies  them  to  beneficial  use,  and  enables  the 
laborer  to  produce  under  the  dire6lion  of  the 
Captain  of  Industry  by  means  of  the  devices  of 
the  inventor  applied  to  the  formulas  of  the  scien- 
tist what  is  needful  for  the  welfare  of  mankind- 
and  to  live  while  he  is  doing  it.  It  is  the  accumu- 
lating man  impelled  by  his  instin6l,  or  if  you 
please  his  lust,  for  wealth  and  power  who  makes 
it  possible  for  poor  men  to  live  in  any  great  num- 
ber. If  he  happens  also  to  be  a  Captain  of  Indus- 
try, which  usually  he  is  not,  it  is  merely  one  mid- 
dleman cut  out.  His  essential  fun6lion  is  that 
of  the  money-grabber.  It  is  by  his  exercise  of 
that  fundlion  that  most  of  us  exist. 

The  third  count  in  the  indi6lment  of  So- 
cialism is  that  by  obliterating  the  Capitalist, 
accumulating  by  interest,  profit,  rent,  and  the 
exploitation  of  Nature  for  private  gain,  it  would 
make  life  impossible  to  half  the  population  of 
the  world  and  not  worth  living  to  the  fittest 
who  should  manage  to  survive. 

[15] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

I  trust  I  make  myself  understood  for  there 
is  more  and  worse  to  come. 

This  discussion  is  necessarily  didactic  and 
assertive  for  it  is  impossible  to  prove  or  dis- 
prove any  of  these  postulates.  It  is  for  that 
reason,  and  the  lack  of  time  that  I  cite  no  in- 
stances. They  would  be  merely  illustrative  and 
not  probative,  for  the  human  intelle6l  is  un- 
equal to  any  adequate  indu6tive  study  of  the 
subje6l,  and  human  life  is  too  short  to  classify, 
master  and  digest  the  data  even  if  they  could 
be  assembled.  All  that  can  be  done  is  to  state 
conclusions  reached  upon  such  observation  and 
experience  as  is  to  each  of  us  available  and 
commend  them  to  the  judgment  of  others  upon 
their  observation  and  experience.  Whatever 
can  be  proved  at  all  can  be  reduced  to  a  syl- 
logism but  agreement  upon  premises  is  in  this 
case  impossible. 

But  some  things  we  do  know  and  among 
them  is  the  awful  fa6l  that  man  is  powerless 
before  Nature  which  deals  with  man  precisely 
as  it  deals  with  other  forms  of  life.  Man  can 
dodge  Nature  as  the  scale  inse6l  cannot,  but 
higher  forms  of  life  can,  and  man  the  most 
efFe6lively  of  all.  But  in  the  end  she  will  get 
every  one  of  us.  Those  will  live  happiest  and 
longest  who  best  know  how  to  work  with  Nature 
and  not  against  her.  And  individualism  and 
not  colle6livism,  is  Nature's  way.    If  our  own 

[16] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

objedl  is  the  greatest  aggregate  of  human  com- 
fort, we  should  realize  that  the  greatest  possible 
aggregate  can  only  be  attained  when  each  in- 
dividual under  the  stimulus  of  self-interest  gets 
the  largest  measure  of  comfort  for  himself. 

In  the  dim  future  which  we  shall  not  see, 
this  may  lead  to  conclusions  which  one  shud- 
ders to  think  of.  It  may  be  that  the  time  will 
come  on  this  planet  when  in  a  decreasing  pop- 
ulation struggling  for  existence  from  the  re- 
mains of  an  exhausted  Nature,  the  greatest 
good  of  the  greatest  number  will  be  found  by 
the  deliberate  extindlion  of  those  least  fit,  that 
what  is  available  may  be  reserved  to  those  who 
can  make  best  use  of  it.  Astronomers  tell  us 
thereare  probably  dead  worlds  whose  spectrums 
tell  us  that  they  are  of  the  same  material  as 
our  own  planet  and  presumably  once  the  abode 
of  sentient  beings,  for  it  is  unthinkable  that  of 
all  the  worlds  which  occupy  space  which  has 
no  confines,  the  small  planet  which  we  inhabit 
alone  supports  sentient  life.  What  tragedies 
darkened  the  last  centuries  of  life  in  those  dy- 
ing worlds  or  what  may  happen  to  our  own 
remote  descendants  happily  we  cannot  know, 
but  human  experience  does  not  enable  us  to 
conceive  of  any  physical  stru6lure  which  does 
not  ultimately  resolve  itself  into  its  primal  ele- 
ments. On  our  own  planet  we  know  of  forms 
of  once  vigorous  life  which  utterly  perished  by 

[17] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

reason  of  physical  changes  which  we  cannot 
comprehend,  and  that  high  civilizations  one 
after  another  have  risen,  flourished,  faded  and 
become  extin6l  while  yet  our  own  world  was 
young,  and  who  shall  say  what  is  in  store  for 
our  own  civilization  ? 

If  this  is  gruesome  why  should  one  be 
asked  to  present  a  subjedl  which  cannot  be 
adequately  presented  without  showing  what 
pygmies  we  are  and  how  helpless  in  the  grasp 
of  an  all-powerful  Nature. 

And  the  application  of  it  all  is  that  when 
Nature's  sole  and  universal  stimulus  to  progress 
is  the  love  of  self  which  she  has  implanted  in 
every  soul,  it  is  folly  to  assume  that  we  can 
better  Nature's  work  by  substituting  for  the 
universal  stimulus  to  effort  a  more  or  less 
fleeting  emotion  which  takes  hold  of  but  a  very 
few  and  persists  with  but  a  still  smaller  num- 
ber. Whatever  scheme  of  colle6livism  we  may 
establish,  we  know  in  advance  that  every  mem- 
ber of  the  colle6live  group  will  continuously 
strive  to  get  for  himself  to  the  utmost  limit 
regardless,  if  it  could  be  discovered,  of  what  is 
rightfully  due.  And  a  plan  of  Society  which 
each  member  of  Society  is  striving  to  subvert 
is  doomed  from  its  birth. 

And  the  fourth  count  in  the  indi6lment  of 
Socialism  is  that  it  is  contradi6lory  to  Nature 
to  such  a  degree  as  to  make  its  permanence 

[18] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

unthinkable  because  destrudlive  not  only  of  hu- 
man comfort  and  happiness  but  of  human  life. 
Expressed  in  briefest  form  the  four  counts 
are  as  follows :  * 

I.  Public  servants  produce  less  for  con- 
sumption than  private  workers.  Decrease  of 
consumption  means  increase  of  human  misery. 
Therefore,  Socialism,  making  all  of  us  public 
servants  would  increase  human  misery. 

II.  Brains,  not  Labor,  creates  the  social 
dividend.  Ability  is  demonstrated  only  under 
strenuous  competition  inspired  by  self-interest. 
Therefore,  Socialism,  excluding  competition  in- 
spired by  self-interest  would  obliterate  the 
social  dividend. 

III.  The  accumulating  man  inspired  by 
selfishness  is  essential  to  any  social  saving.  So- 
cial saving  is  essential  to  the  support  of  an  in- 
creasing population.  Therefore,  Socialism  by 
eliminating  the  Capitalist  would  make  life  im- 
possible to  many  who  now  live. 

IV.  To  fight  Nature  is  to  die.  Socialism 
fights  Nature.  Therefore,  Socialism  would  des- 
troy the  race. 

It  is  a  matter  of  premises,  and  I  have  already 
said  that  the  premises  in  these  syllogisms  can 
neither  be  proved  or  disproved.  People,  I  sup- 
pose, will  continue  to  fight  over  them  but  I 

*  Some  of  these  counts  would  bear  subdividing  but  they  would 
come  out  all  right.  Any  syllogism  will  come  out  all  right  when 
you  assume  the  premises. 

[19] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

shall  not.  No  human  life  is  long  enough  and  no 
human  intelledl  strong  enough  to  demonstrate 
or  disprove  any  one  of  them.  Experimentally 
mankind  is  always  somewhere  trying  out  one 
or  the  other  of  these  postulates  but  success  or 
failure  only  proves  that  they  did  or  did  not 
prove  true  in  that  particular  case. 

An  underlying  fallacy  of  Socialism  is  the 
concept  that  poverty  or  at  least  extreme  pov- 
erty, can  be  banished  from  the  world.  It  can- 
not. It  is  impossible  for  the  effedlive  to  produce 
and  save  as  fast  as  the  inefFedlive  will  waste 
and  destroy  if  they  can  get  at  it.  No  truth  in 
the  Bible  is  more  profound  than  the  saying : 
"The  poor  ye  have  always  with  you." 

The  concept  is  based  upon  an  unfounded 
belief  in  the  competence  of  the  average  man. 
He  is  not  nearly  so  competent  an  animal  as  he 
has  taught  himself  to  believe.  We  read  our 
Nordau  and  with  but  the  very  slightest  ability 
to  judge  what  he  says  we  declare  him  a  libeler. 
We  read  our  Le  Bon  and  declare  off-hand  that 
it  is  absurd  and  wicked  to  say  that  the  crowd 
has  no  more  sense  than  a  flock  of  sheep.  When 
we  hear  of  an  alienist  who  cites  the  increase  of 
murder,  suicide  and  insanity  as  evidence  that 
mankind  is  losing  its  mental  balance,  we  declare 
that  the  man  is  crazy  himself. 

I  do  not  say  that  such  men  are  or  are  not 
right  or  anywhere  near  right  in  the  views  they 

[20] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

express,  but  I  do  say  that  they  are  writing  in 
cold  blood  in  the  light  of  a  great  deal  of  exa6t 
knowledge  and  certainly  aremuch  better  judges 
of  the  truth  in  those  matters  than  most  of  us 
who  dispose  of  them  so  brusquely. 

The  fa6l  is  that  man,  like  other  animals, 
differs  greatly  in  individual  ability  but  he  dif- 
fers from  other  animals  in  that  the  difference 
between  the  most  competent  and  the  least  com- 
petent is  enormously  greater  than  such  differ- 
ence in  any  other  species.  The  highest  type  of 
man  is  almost  Godlike  in  the  scope  and  keenness 
of  his  intelle6t.  The  lowest  type  reaches  depths 
of  degradation  not  touched  by  any  other  animal. 
There  is  no  degradation  so  utterly  degraded  as 
a  degraded  mind. 

If  you  ask  what  all  this  has  to  do  with  Social- 
ism, the  reply  is  that  it  has  everything  to  do 
with  it.  The  sole  objedl  which  I  have  in  this 
address  is  to  impress  upon  you  the  concept  of 
man  as  an  animal  in  the  grip  of  an  all-power- 
ful Nature,  and  differing  from  other  animals 
solely  in  his  greater  ability  to  dodge  and  evade, 
and  so  prolong  the  processes  through  which 
Nature  will  surely  get  him  in  the  end ;  to  con- 
ceive of  him  also  as  subje6l  to  the  same  law 
which  enthralls  other  animals,  whereby  the  fit- 
test who  demonstrate  their  fitness  in  the  eco- 
nomic struggle  shall  survive  while  the  least  fit 
shall  perish;  to  conceive  of  him  as  prepared 

[21] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

and  inspired  for  the  struggle  by  the  love  of 
self  which  Nature  has  implanted  in  his  soul  in 
order  that  the  race  may  endure  to  the  utmost 
limit  possible  for  it,  by  the  survival  of  those 
having  the  greatest  capacity  for  happiness. 

And,  having  fixed  this  conception  in  your 
minds,  form  your  own  judgment  of  the  prob- 
able outcome  of  a  contest  which  would  begin 
by  eliminating  from  man  the  one  principle- 
selfishness-through  which  he  must  survive  if 
he  survives  at  all. 

Thus  far,  I  have  dealt  with  the  subjedl  in 
icy  cold  blood  as  a  purely  economic  problem 
wholly  excluding  all  considerations  of  human- 
ity. It  must  be  dealt  with  in  that  way  if  we 
are  to  deal  with  it  intelligently.  What  must 
be  will  be,  however  dearly  we  may  wish  it 
otherwise.  But  we  do  not  wish  to  go  home 
with  ice  in  our  souls,  and  let  us  see  if  we  can- 
not find  some  refledlions  more  comforting.  I 
am  sure  that  we  can. 

I  have  said  that  humanitarianism  has  no 
legitimate  place  in  economic  discussion  and  it 
has  not.  But  it  has  a  very  large  place  outside 
economic  theory  and  often  in  conta6l  with  eco- 
nomic results. 

There  may  be  economic  gains  which  ought 
to  be  and  will  be  surrendered  for  social  gains,  as 
long  as  we  can  do  it  and  live.  A  very  reliable 
test  of  the  prosperity  of  a  Society  is  the  extent 

[22] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

to  which  it  can  without  distress,  surrender 
economic  goods  in  exchange  for  social  goods. 

I  have  attacked  Socialism,  not  Socialists. 
Multitudes  of  Socialists  are  most  charming 
men  and  women,  and  the  aspirations  of  pure 
Socialism  are  the  noblest  of  which  the  human 
mind  can  conceive.  How  impossible  they  are 
of  realization  I  think  they  are,  I  have  en- 
deavored to  show.  But  there  are  individualists 
whose  ideals  are  equally  noble.  Any  concep- 
tion that  Socialists  as  a  class  are  upon  a  higher 
ethical  plane  than  individualists  may  be  dis- 
missed. Personally,  I  fear  that  at  present  the 
average  ethical  plane  of  Socialists  is  below 
that  of  opponents  for  the  allurements  of  Social- 
istic theory  have  attradted  to  that  cult  a  great 
number  of  the  economically  impotent,  but 
nevertheless  greedy,  who  know  nothing  and 
care  less  about  Socialistic  theory  but  lust  for 
that  which  they  have  never  earned.  It  is  they 
who  promote  class  hatred  as  well  as  class  con- 
sciousness. They  are  an  effective  offset,  morally, 
to  the  greedy  and  consciousless  employers 
who  nevertheless  perform  a  useful  economic 
fundlion  which  the  greedy  among  the  Social- 
ists do  not. 

But,  my  controversy  at  this  time  is  not  with 
them, but  with  the  Socialistic  idealistsmoved  by 
the  loftiest  conception  of  the  welfare  of  man- 
kind and  the  most  earnest  desire  to  promote  it. 

[23] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

And  now  let  us  introduce  somewhat  of  hu- 
manitarianism,  which,  while  it  has  no  place  in 
economic  theory,  is  that  which  most  ennobles 
and  beautifies  human  chara6ler.  And  here 
let  me  register  my  last  attack  upon  Socialistic 
controversy,  which  is,  that  fundamentally  it 
tends  to  degrade  human  charadler  by  adopt- 
ing for,  and  applying  to  the  manual  workers 
of  the  world  a  contemptuous  epithet.  When 
Marx,  if  it  was  he,  I  am  not  sure,  shouted: 
** Proletariat  of  all  nations,  unite"  he  said  a 
very  wicked  thing.  It  is  not  my  conception  of 
the  manual  worker  that  he  is  a  mere  "child 
getter,"  but  rather  that  he  is  as  such,  morally 
and  socially  the  equal  of  any  of  us,  from  whose 
ranks  there  are  continually  emerging  the  lead- 
ers of  thought,  of  discovery,  of  direction  and 
of  accumulation  to  whose  abilities  and  a6livi- 
ties  all  human  progress  is  due,  and  I  cannot 
hear  without  indignation  suggestions  from  his 
own  would-be  leaders  which  impair  his  self- 
respe6l.  I  wish,  for  a  concrete  example,  that 
the  workingman  should  pay  his  poll  tax  and 
contribute  to  his  occupational  insurance  with 
the  rest  of  us,  not  to  relieve  Capital  of  a  burden, 
but  that  the  chara6ler  of  the  working  man 
himself  may  be  strengthened  by  a  conscious 
contribution  to  the  upkeep  of  Society. 

Our  emotions  are  stronger  than  our  reason- 
ing powers,  and  as  a  matter  of  fa6l,  colle6live 

[24] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

human  action  is  and  during  any  period  which 
we  need  consider  will  be  controlled  by  human- 
itarian instin6ls  and  not  by  the  rigidity  of 
economic  theory.  Individually,  we  do  and  al- 
ways shall,  seek  each  his  own  particular  inter- 
est. Colle6lively,  we  invariably  consider  the 
welfare  of  all.  This  has  been  particularly  im- 
pressed on  me  during  the  last  few  years,  dur- 
ing which  I  have  presided  over  the  delibera- 
tions of  a  large  body  of  good  citizens,  probably 
about  equally  divided  between  the  accumulat- 
ing and  non-accumulating  classes.  Whatever 
the  individual  practices  and  tendencies  of  the 
respe6live  members,  whenever  after  discussion 
the  colledlive  opinion  is  expressed  on  any  social 
topic  the  vote  is  invariably  substantially  unani- 
mous for  that  policy  which  those  present  be- 
lieve will  make  for  the  general  good.  It  is  not 
true  that  the  rich  desire  to  oppress  the  poor. 
It  is  not  true  that  there  is  any  real  confli6l  of 
interest  between  classes.  It  is  true  that  there 
is  a  general  desire  for  the  general  welfare.  And 
it  is  also  true  that  the  general  welfare  will  be 
surest  and  soonest  attained  by  co-operation,  and 
notconfli6l  between  classes,  under  the  dire6lion 
of  those  proved  to  be  strongest  and  wisest. 

I  have  said,  and  I  am  sure  you  must  agree, 
that  man  economically  differs  from  other  ani- 
mals mainly  in  his  greater  ability  to  evade  the 
operation  of  Nature's  own  laws  and  to  make 

[25] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

use  of  the  material  resources  and  forces  of  Na- 
ture to  assist  him  in  so  doing.  And  he  does  it 
mainly  by  colle6live  adlion  which  is  displayed 
most  efFecSlively  and  beneficently  in  those  great 
economic  organizations  which  we  hate  and  stig- 
matize as  "trusts"  and  which  every  one  of  us 
longs  to  get  into  as  our  best  assurance  of  eco- 
nomic stability. 

The  problem  is  how  to  so  regulate  these 
economic  regulators  of  Nature,  that  each  shall 
get  from  their  beneficent  operation,  not  that 
which  is  his  ethical  due,  for  that  we  can  never 
determine,  nor  would  it  be  for  the  general  wel- 
fare that  each  should  receive  his  due,  but  that 
which  each  can  receive  without  injury  to  Society. 

It  is  certain  that  each  will  get  less  as  the 
ages  go  by  unless  by  our  human  ingenuity  we 
can  make  produ6lion  keep  pace  with  popula- 
tion. At  present,  produdlion  greatly  varies  in 
different  parts  of  the  world,  and  the  condition 
in  each  country  is  indicated  by  the  amount  of 
leisure  possible  to  the  average  man.  As  popu- 
lation increases,  leisure  must  decrease.  If  we 
work  in  a  crowded  community  but  eight  hours 
per  day,  some  will  die  among  the  weaker  who 
would  have  lived  if  all  had  worked  nine  hours. 
The  best  index  of  the  economic  condition  of 
any  country  is  the  amount  of  leisure  which  can 
be  enjoyed  by  the  average  man  without  notice- 
able increase  of  mortality  among  the  least 

[26] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

efficient.  The  mortality  tables  have  not  yet 
been  studied  in  their  relations  to  this  subje6l, 
but  in  time  they  will  be.  In  Australia,  mostly 
unsettled,  the  eight  hour  day  is  easy.  If  en- 
forced in  China  the  mortality  would  be  awful. 
But  then  China  has  great  but  untouched  nat- 
ural resources  to  be  developed  by  machinery 
devised  elsewhere,  and  whose  development  will 
decrease  mortality,  while  at  the  same  time,  at 
least  for  a  long  period,  permitting  more  leisure. 
These  conditions  tend  to  equalize  themselves 
throughout  the  world  and  in  time  the  contest 
between  humanitarian  instin6ls  and  economic 
pressure  will  reach  a  world-wide  equilibrium 
through  the  operation  of  natural  law.  What 
will  happen  then  I  do  not  know.  Neither  can 
any  of  us  know. 

What  we  do  know  is  that  in  each  genera- 
tion the  aggregate  of  human  happiness  will  be 
in  a  dire6l  ratio  with  produ6lion  per  capita, 
up  to  the  limit  of  the  ability  of  the  earth  to 
produce  food.  We  also  know  that  the  rate  of 
produ6lion  per  capita  will  increase  or  decrease 
in  a  dire6l  ratio  with  the  amount  of  human 
energy  devoted  to  produ6lion  and  not  wasted 
in  confli6l,  whether  individual,  class  or  inter- 
national. 

Each  generation  must  work  out  its  own 
problems  in  its  own  way.  As  population  grows 
denser,  individual  freedom   must  more  and 

[27] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

more  give  way  to  colledlive  restraint  and  di- 
redlion.  We  in  the  cities  have  less  freedom 
than  those  of  the  country,  and  the  greater  the 
city  the  more  the  individual  impulse  must  be 
subordinated  to  colle6live  control. 

But  we  must  never  attempt  to  supplant  in- 
dividual selfishness,  inspiring  individual  initia- 
tive and  energy  by  any  form  of  community 
ownership  or  dire6lion  which  destroys  or  lessens 
opportunity  for  the  more  competent  and  es- 
pecially the  economically  exceptional  man. 
You  would  create  thereby  a  machine  operated 
by  machinists  for  the  accomplishment  of  ma- 
chine purposes  which  are  the  purposes,  good 
or  bad  as  the  case  may  be,  of  the  individual 
operators  who  have  never  been  and  are  not 
likely  to  be  the  economically  competent. 

For  our  generation  the  problem  is,  while 
not  restri6ling  either  the  opportunity  or  the 
reward  of  the  economically  competent,  to  com- 
pel the  predatory  and  extortionate  among  them 
to  behave  decently,  so  that  others  of  their  class 
may  do  so  without  ruin-to  which  end,  in  my 
judgment,  jail  sentences  and  not  fines  will  be 
most  efFe6live. 

And  likewise,  to  compel  the  ill-disposed  and 
violent  among  the  economically  inefFe6live,  to 
obey  the  laws  or  suffer  the  consequences. 

To  bother  our  heads  much  less  about  Social 
theories,  whose  premises  it  is  impossible  to  es- 

[28] 


The  Case  Against  Socialism 

tablish,  and  much  more  about  the  pra6lical 
relief  of  the  unfortunate  by  both  individual 
and  coUedlive  a6lion  and  suppression  of  para- 
sitism among  both  rich  and  poor. 

To  encourage  and  promote  the  organiza- 
tion of  interests,  not  for  contention,  but  for  co- 
operation. 

To  fully  recognize,  that  only  by  personal  ex- 
ertion according  to  his  ability  does  any  one  earn 
the  right  to  live,  but  that  the  reward  of  exer- 
tion will  be  and  should  be  apportioned,  not  in 
the  ratio  of  energy  displayed,  but  in  that  of  its 
effedliveness  and  usefulness  to  Society. 

To  learn  to  differentiate  between  that  reas- 
onable discontent  which  is  the  mainspring  of 
human  progress,  and  that  unreasonable  discon- 
tent which  is  the  destru6lion  of  Society. 

And  finally,  each  of  us  according  to  his 
ability  and  opportunity,  to  pradlice  and  incul- 
cate respedl  for  the  law,  the  maintenance  of 
order,  regard  for  the  rights  of  others,  admira- 
tion for  the  successful,  sympathy  with  the  un- 
fortunate, charity  for  all,  hope  for  humanity, 
joy  in  the  simple  life  and  contentment  there- 
with. 


[29] 


A  CRITIQUE  OF  SOCIALISM 


To  the  Ruskin  Club 

When  your  Mr.  Bamford  wrote  me  that  the 
Ruskin  Club  was  out  hunting  trouble,  and  that 
if  I  would  come  over  here  the  bad  men  of  the 
club  would  ''do  me  up, "  /  confess  my  first  im- 
pulse was  to  excuse  myself  from  the  proffered 
hospitality.  In  the  first  place,  as  I  have  never 
posed  as  a  social  champion  I  had  no  reputation 
at  stake  and  I  was  horribly  afraid.  Secondly, 
while  my  7'eading  of  Socialist  and  Anti- Socialist 
literature  is  the  reverse  of  extensive,  I  am  very 
sure  that  nothing  can  be  said  for  or  against 
Socialism  which  has  not  already  been  said  many 
times,  and  so  well  said  that  a  fair  collection  of 
Anti- Socialist  litei'ature  would  make  a  punch- 
ing-bag  solid  enough  to  absof^b  the  force  of  the 
most  ene7getic  of  pugilists.  Finally,  the  inutil- 
ity of  such  a  sally  presented  itself  forcibly,  since 
there  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  record  of  the 
reformation  of  a  Socialist  after  the  habit  is  once 
firmly  established.  But  while  at  first  these  con- 
siderations were  all  against  my  putting  on  viy 
armor,  in  the  end  the  instinct  of  eating  andfight- 
i?ig,  which  is  as  forceful  in  the  modern  savage, 
under  the  veneer  of  civilization,  as  in  our  un- 
polished progenitors,  overcame  all  considerations 
of  prudence,  and  here  I  am  to  do  battle  accord- 
ing to  my  ability.  I  promise  to  strike  no  foul 
blows  and  not  to  dodge  the  most  portentous  of 
whacks,  but  to  ride  straight  at  you  and  hit  as 
hard  as  I  can. 

[33] 


A  CRITIQUE  OF 
SOCIALISM 

WHILE  it  is  doubtless  true  that 
no  one  can  live  in  the  world 
without  in  some  degree  modify- 
ing his  environment,  it  is  also 
true  that  the  influence  of  a  single  person  is 
seldom  appreciable  or  his  opinion  upon  Social 
questions  of  sufficient  importance  to  excite 
curiosity,  but  I  confess  that  when  I  listen  to 
an  address  intended  to  be  thoughtful,  I  enjoy 
it  more  or  at  any  rate  endure  it  better,  if  I 
have  some  knowledge  of  the  mental  attitude 
of  the  speaker  toward  his  general  subje6l. 
Thinking  that  possibly  those  who  hear  me  this 
evening  may  have  the  same  feeling,  I  begin  by 
saying  that  I  earnestly  favor  a  just  distribu- 
tion of  comfort.  I  suppose  that  if  I  should  ana- 
lyze the  mental  processes  leading  to  that  wish, 
I  should  find  toward  the  bottom  a  convidlon 
that  if  each  had  his  due  I  should  be  better  off. 
The  obje6lion  to  the  Socialistic  program  is  that 
it  would  prevent  a  just  distribution  of  comfort. 
Some  years  ago  in  a  book  of  which  I  was 
guilty,  I  wrote  the  following:  ** There  is  im- 
plied in  all  Socialistic  writing  the  do6lrine 
that  organized  man  can  override,  and  as  ap- 

[35] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

plied  to  himself,  repeal  the  fundamental  law 
of  Nature,  that  no  species  can  endure  except 
by  the  production  of  more  individuals  than 
can  be  supported,  of  whom  the  weakest  must 
die,  with  the  corollary  of  misery  before  death. 
Competitive  Society  tends  to  the  death  of  the 
weakest.  Socialistic  Society  would  tend  to  the 
preservation  of  the  weak.  There  can  be  no 
question  of  the  grandeur  of  this  conception. 
To  no  man  is  given  nobler  aspirations  than  to 
him  who  conceives  of  a  just  distribution  of 
comfort  in  an  existence  not  idle,  but  without 
struggle.  It  would  be  a  Nirvana  glorious  only 
in  the  absence  of  sorrow,  but  still  perhaps  a 
happy  ending  for  our  race.  It  may,  after  all, 
be  our  destiny.  Nor  can  any  right-minded  man 
forbear  his  tribute  to  the  good  which  Socialis- 
tic agitation  has  done.  No  man  can  tell  how 
much  misery  it  has  prevented,  or  how  much  it 
will  prevent.  So,  also,  while  we  may  regret  the 
emotionalism  which  renders  even  so  keen  an 
intellect  as  that  of  Karl  Marx  an  unsafe  guide, 
we  must,  when  we  read  his  description  of  con- 
ditions for  which  he  sought  remedy,  confess 
that  he  had  been  less  a  man  had  he  been  less 
emotional.  The  man  whom  daily  contact  with 
remediable  misery  will  not  render  incompe- 
tent to  always  write  logically,  I  would  not  wish 
to  know.  But  it  is  the  mission  of  such  men  to 
arouse  a6lion  and  not  to  finally  determine  its 

[36] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

scope.  The  advocate  may  not  be  the  judge. 
My  animus  is  that  I  heartily  desire  most  if  not 
all  the  ends  proposed  by  abstradl  Socialism, 
which  I  understand  to  be  a  perfe6lly  just  dis- 
tribution of  comfort.  If,  therefore,  I  am  a  critic 
of  Socialism,  I  am  a  friendly  critic,  my  objec- 
tions to  its  progress  resting  mainly  on  a  con- 
vi6lion  that  it  would  not  remove,  but  would 
intensify,  the  evils  which  it  is  intended  to  mit- 
igate." That  is  quite  sufficient  in  regard  to  the 
personal  equation. 

There  appear  to  be,  unfortunately,  as  many 
se6ls  of  Socialists  as  of  Christians,  and  if  "Cap- 
ital"  were  a  more  clearly  written  book  I  should 
be  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  as  much 
better  for  Socialists  if  all  other  books  on  So- 
cialism were  destroyed  as  it  would  be  for  Chris- 
tians and  Jews  if  all  books  on  Theology  were 
destroyed,  except  the  Bible.  By  Socialism  I 
mean  what  some  Socialist  writers  call  "Scien- 
tific Socialism."  "Marxism,"  it  might  be  called. 
"Humanism,"  I  think  Marx  would  have  pre- 
ferred to  call  it,  and  I  believe  did  call  it,  for  he 
dealt  with  abstra6l  do6lrine  applicable  to  men 
and  not  to  nations,  and  his  propaganda  was 
the  "International."  Incidentally,  as  we  pass 
on,  we  may  notice  in  this  conne6lion  the  dilem- 
ma of  American  Socialists  which  they  do  not 
seem  to  realize.  State  Socialism  has  no  logical 
place  in  a  Socialistic  program,  for  it  merely 

[37] 


:?61982 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

substitutes  the  more  deadly  competition  of  na- 
tions for  that  of  the  individual,  or  even  **trust" 
competition  now  existing,  while  Humanism,  or 
Marxism,  tends  to  a  uniform  condition  of  hu- 
manity which  the  American  proletariat  would 
fight  tooth  and  nail  because  they  would  rightly 
believe  that  for  them  it  would  at  present  be  a 
leveling  down  instead  of  leveling  up. 

Karl  Marx  was,  of  course,  not  the  inventor 
of  Socialism,  nor  was  he,  so  far  as  I  know,  the 
originator  of  any  of  its  fundamental  do6lrines,- 
the  do6lrine,  for  example,  that  all  value  is  de- 
rived from  Labor  was  part  of  mediaeval  cler- 
icism,-but  he  first  reduced  it  to  coherent  form 
and  published  it  as  a  complete  and  definite 
system,  and  upon  the  issues,  substantially  as 
he  formulated  and  left  them,  must  Socialism 
stand  or  fall. 

I  must  assume  the  members  of  the  Ruskin 
Club  to  be  familiar  with  the  Marxian  funda- 
mental propositions,  which  I  do  not  state  be- 
cause I  shall  confine  my  attack  to  the  three 
derived  propositions  about  which  discussion 
mainly  centers.  We  certainly  do  not  want  an 
exercise  in  serious  diale6lics  after  dinner,  but 
I  will  say  in  passing  that  I  do  not  think  that 
any  of  his  fundamental  propositions  are  true, 
or  that  his  theory  of  value  has  a  single  sound 
leg  to  stand  on,  and  as  for  what  he  calls  "sur- 
plus value,"  I  doubt  whether  there  be  such  a 

[38] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

thing.  At  any  rate  he  has  not  proved  it,  nor 
can  it  be  proved,  without  taking  into  consider- 
ation the  enormous  number  of  industrial  fail- 
ures, as  well  as  the  more  limited  number  of 
industrial  successes-and  there  are  no  data  for 
that  purpose.  I  may  also  mention  as  what 
seems  to  me  a  fatal  flaw  in  Socialistic  philoso- 
phy, its  concentration  upon  the  conditions  of 
Industrial  Society,  without  adequate  conception 
of  a  provision  for  the  requirements  of  agricul- 
ture. Industrialism  and  commercialism  are 
doubtless  conveniences  essential  to  our  present 
civilization;  but  if  every  fa6lory  and  all  com- 
merce were  blotted  from  the  earth  the  world 
would  go  right  along,  and  when  the  necessary 
millions  had  perished  in  the  adjustment,  those 
remaining  would  be  as  happy  as  ever.  Man- 
kind adjusts  itself  to  new  environments  very 
readily.  We  here  in  cities  talking  wisely  on 
these  things  are  wholly  unnecessary.  The 
farmer  is  essential,  because  without  him  we 
should  starve.  Nobody  else  is  essential.  We 
must  not  get  the  big-head.  Economical  farm- 
ing on  Socialistic  methods  is  impossible,  and 
any  successful  system  of  Social  betterment 
must  be  based  on  the  requirements  of  econom- 
ical farming.  Finally,  to  conclude  this  prelimi- 
nary reconnaissance,  the  attitude  of  Socialism 
to  religion  is  wholly  unjustifiable.  I  am  pro- 
foundly convinced  that  the  groveling  heathen, 

[39] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

who  in  sincerity  bows  down  to  a  "bloomin* 
idol  made  of  mud,"  as  Kipling  puts  it,  has  in 
him  the  propagation  of  a  nobler  and  happier 
posterity  than  the  most  cultured  cosmopolitan 
who  is  destitute  of  reverence.  The  Church  and 
the  Synagogue  are  the  only  existing  institutions 
of  modern  Society  which  are  engaged  in  the 
work  of  upbuilding  and  strengthening  that 
rugged  personal  charadler  which  is  the  only 
sure  foundation  of  any  worthy  civilization. 

I  do  not  discuss  the  fundamental  Marxian 
propositions  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place, 
it  would  be  laborious  beyond  measure  for  me, 
and  dreary  beyond  measure  for  you.  For 
example,  the  bottom  stone  in  the  foundation 
of  the  sub-basement  of  the  Marxian  edifice  is 
the  proposition  that  the  equation 

X  commodity  A=y  commodity  B 
essentially  differs  from  the  equation 

y  Commodity  B==X  Commodity  A. 

Now,  a  discussion  whether  there  is  between 
these  two  equations  a  difference  which  it  is 
Socially  necessary  to  take  account  of,  is  a  thing 
to  be  put  into  books  where  it  can  be  skipped, 
and  not  imposed  in  cold  blood  even  on  intel- 
le6lual  enemies.  Personally  I  do  not  believe 
there  is,  for  1  do  not  think  that  Social  phenomena 
can  be  dealt  with  by  the  rigorous  methods  of 
mathematics.  One  can  never  be  sure  that  the 
unknown  quantities  are  all  accounted  for.   But 

[40] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

whether  this  or  similar  propositions  are  essen- 
tial to  the  discussion  of  the  theory  of  surplus 
value  or  not,  I  do  not  describe  them  because 
they  are  of  no  particular  importance. 

Socialism  is  not  based  upon  the  Marxian 
theory  of  value,  but  the  Marxian  theory  of 
value  was  evolved  in  an  endeavor  to  fix  a 
scientific  basis  for  a  popular  movement  already 
fully  under  way.  Socialism  is  not  based  on 
reason,  but  emotion;  not  on  reflection,  but  de- 
sire; it  is  not  scientific,  but  popular.  If  every 
Socialist  on  earth  should  concede  that  the 
Marxian  theory  of  surplus  value  had  been 
knocked  into  smithereens,  it  would  have  no 
more  efFe6l  on  the  progress  of  Socialism  than 
the  gentle  zephyr  of  a  June  day  on  the  hide 
of  a  rhinoceros.  Socialism  must  be  attacked  in 
the  derived  propositions  about  which  popular 
discussion  centers,  and  the  assault  must  be,  not 
to  prove  that  the  do6lrines  are  scientifically 
unsound,  but  that  they  tend  to  the  impover- 
ishment and  debasement  of  the  masses.  These 
propositions  are  three,  and  I  lay  down  as  my 
thesis -for  I  abhor  defensive  warfare -that 

Rent  is  right. 
Interest  is  rights 
Profits  are  right, 

and  that  they  are  all  three  ethically  and  eco- 
nomically justified,  and  are  in  fa6l  essential  to 

[41] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

the  happiness  and  progress  of  the  race,  and 
more  especially  to  those  who  labor  with  their 
hands. 

Now,  first,  rent:  I  confess  that  I  have  no 
patience  with  any  one  who  claims,  as  an  in- 
herent right,  the  exclusive  ownership  of  any 
part  of  the  earth.  He  might  as  well  claim 
ownership  in  a  se6lion  of  air.  In  this  I  am  very 
certain  that  I  have  the  hearty  concurrence  of 
every  member  of  this  Club.  I  am  so  sure  of 
this,  in  fact,  that  I  am  going  to  make  that 
assumption,  in  which  we  all  agree,  the  starting 
point  of  a  little  dialogue,  in  which,  after  the 
manner  of  Plato,  I  will  put  Socrates  at  one  end 
of  the  discussion,  and  some  of  his  friends,  whom 
we  will  suppose  to  be  Phaedo,  and  Crito,  and 
Simmias,  and  the  rest  at  the  other,  and  we  will 
let  Socrates  and  Phasdo  carry  on  the  conver- 
sation, which  might  run  as  follows: 

Socrates — We  are  agreed,  then,  that  no 
man  has  any  right  inherent  in  himself  to  the 
ownership  of  land. 

Ph^do — Certainly,  we  agree  to  that.  Such 
a  thing  is  absurd,  for  the  earth  is  a  gift  to  the 
human  race,  and  not  to  particular  men. 

Socrates — I  am  glad  that  you  think  so, 
and  am  sure  we  shall  continue  to  agree.  And 
if  no  one  man  has  any  right  to  exclusive  own- 
ership of  land,  neither  have  any  two  men,  since 
it  is  plain  that  neither  could  convey  to  him- 

[42] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

self  and  another  any  right  which  he  did  not 
possess,  nor  could  two  men  together  by  any 
means  get  lawful  title  to  what  neither  was  en- 
titled to  hold. 

Ph^do — You  are  doubtless  right,  Socrates. 
I  do  not  think  any  man  could  dispute  that. 

Socrates — And  if  neither  one  man  nor 
two  men  can  acquire  lawful  titletoland, neither 
for  the  same  reason  could  any  number,  no 
matter  how  great,  acquire  lawful  title. 

PHiEDO — That  certainly  follows  from  what 
we  have  already  agreed  to. 

Socrates — And  it  makes  no  difference  how 
small  or  how  great  a  portion  of  land  may  be. 
No  man  and  no  number  of  men  can  acquire 
lawful  ownership  of  it. 

Ph^do — That  is  also  so  plainly  true  that 
it  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  say  it.  It  cer- 
tainly makes  no  difference  whether  the  land 
be  a  square  furlong  or  a  continent. 

Socrates — As  you  say,  Phaedo,  that  is  very 
evident.  The  earth  belongs  to  mankind,  and 
all  men  are  by  nature  sharers  in  its  benefits. 

Ph^edo — Itrustthatyouwillunderstandthat 
I  agree  with  you  in  that,  and  so  make  an  end  of  it. 

Socrates — It  is  perhaps  best  that  we  be 
very  sure  that  we  agree  as  we  go  on,  so  that  if 
we  should  at  any  time  disagree,  we  do  not  need 
to  go  far  back  to  find  where  our  difference  be- 
gan. The  earth  is  the  property  of  men  in  com- 

[43] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

mon,  and  each  has  an  undivided  share  in  its 
possession. 

Ph^edo — That  is  another  thing  too  plain 
to  be  disputed. 

Socrates — And  when  men  hold  property 
in  common,  each  has  as  much  right  to  all  parts 
of  it  as  another. 

PHiEDO — To  be  sure.  I  do  not  see  why  we 
need  waste  time  in  mentioning  things  so  plain 
and  so  trivial. 

Socrates — And  when  men  own  property 
they  may  do  with  it  as  they  please,  and  prop- 
erty which  men  own  jointly  they  may  visit  and 
remain  upon,  the  one  as  much  as  the  other. 

pHiEDo — Unquestionably  that  is  so,  and 
we  should  do  better  to  go  to  sleep  in  the  shade 
somewhere,  than  to  spend  time  in  repeating 
things  so  simple. 

Socrates — Be  patient,  Phaedo,  and  in  time 
we  may  find  somewhat  wherein  we  do  not  so 
perfe6lly  agree.  But,  whatever  property  men 
have  the  right  to  visit  and  remain  upon,  they 
are  always  free  to  use  in  common  with  their 
fellow  owners. 

Phaedo — Certainly.  Will  you  never,  O  Soc- 
rates, have  done  with  this? 

Socrates — And  Chinamen,  therefore,  have 
full  right  to  come  and  live  in  California. 

Ph^do  (and  the  rest) — We  will  all  see 
them  in  hell  first. 

[44] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

And  I  am  very  certain  that  every  Socialist 
in  California  will  agree  both  with  the  premises 
and  the  conclusion. 

But  we  might  try  another  course  of  reason- 
ing by  which  we  may  perhaps  more  easily 
reach  the  predetermined  conclusion,  and  we 
will  let  the  same  parties  carry  on  the  dialogue, 
which  is  a  most  delightful  way  of  reasoning 
when,  as  in  the  case  of  Plato  and  myself,  the 
same  person  conducts  both  sides  of  the  discus- 
sion.  It  might  run  in  this  way: 

Phvedo — We  have  come,  Socrates,  to  dis- 
cuss with  you,  if  you  will  permit  us,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  ownership  of  land.  Crito  and  Hip- 
pias  and  myself  and  others  were  considering 
that  subjedl  the  other  day,  and  we  were  not 
able  to  agree.  Hippocrates,  whom  you  know, 
has  lately  returned  from  the  region  of  Mount 
Olympus,  and  as  he  was  hunting  one  day  on 
the  lower  slopes  of  the  mountain,  he  came, 
haply,  upon  a  beautiful  vale,  fertile  and  well 
watered,  wherein  was  no  habitation  or  sign  of 
man.  The  soft  breezes  blew  gently  over  the 
rich  green  plain  whereon  the  red  deer  grazed 
peacefully  and  turned  not  at  his  approach. 
And  when  Hippocrates  returned  from  his  hunt 
he  found  upon  inquiry  that  no  man  of  the 
region  knew  of  that  vale  or  had  ever  heard 
thereof.  So,  as  he  had  marked  the  entrance 
thereto,  he  returned  thither  with  the  intent  to 

[45] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

remain  there  for  a  space.  And  remaining  there 
through  the  warm  summer  he  fenced  in  the 
vale  and  the  deer  in  it,  and  built  him  a  house, 
and  remained  there  a  full  year.  But  certain 
concerns  of  his  family  at  that  time  constrained 
Hippocrates  to  return  to  Athens,  and  since  he 
can  no  more  live  in  his  vale  he  offered  to  sell 
it  to  Hipparchus  for  a  talent  of  silver  for  a 
place  to  keep  summer  boarders.  And  Hip- 
parchus was  content;  but  when  they  repaired 
to  the  Demosion  to  exchange  the  price  for  the 
deed,  Hippocrates  was  unable  to  produce  any 
parchment  showing  his  title  to  the  vale.  And 
when  he  was  unable  to  do  that,  Hipparchus 
would  not  pay  down  his  silver,  until  he  could 
make  further  inquiry.  The  next  day,  we  all, 
meeting  at  the  house  of  Phidias, fell  to  debating 
whether  Hippocrates  owned  the  land  and  could 
sell  it  to  Hipparchus.  And  some  said  one  thing 
and  some  another,  and  in  the  end  we  agreed 
that  when  some  of  us  were  next  together,  we 
would  go  to  the  house  of  Socrates,  and  if  he 
were  content,  we  would  discuss  the  matter  with 
him.  And  today  happening  to  so  meet  we 
have  come  to  you,  Socrates,  and  would  be  glad 
to  hear  whether  you  think  Hippocrates  owns 
that  vale,  and  may  sell  it  or  no. 

Socrates — You  are  very  welcome,  Phaedo, 
and  your  friends,  and  as  for  the  matter  you 
name,  I  shall  be  glad  to  talk  of  it  with  you  and 

[46] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

see  if  we  can  come  to  some  understanding  of 
it.  But  before  we  can  proceed  in  the  discus- 
sion, it  will  be  necessary  to  find  some  starting 
point  upon  which  we  can  all  agree,  because 
until  we  agree,  at  the  beginning,  upon  some 
one  thing  pertaining  to  the  matter,  as  certain 
and  not  to  be  doubted,  discussion  is  useless,  but 
if  we  can  find  such  a  thing,  which  none  of  us 
doubt,  we  may  be  able  to  make  something  of 
the  matter.  I  propose,  therefore,  O  Phaedo,  that 
you  propound  some  one  statement  which  all  you 
who  have  been  discussing  the  matter  believe. 

Ph^DO — Of  a  truth,  Socrates,  we  discussed 
the  matter  till  the  sun  went  down,  but  I  do 
not  remember  any  one  thing  to  which  we  all 
agreed  except  that  there  is  such  a  vale  at  the 
foot  of  Mount  Olympus,  as  Hippocrates  de- 
scribes, and  that  he  lived  therein  for  a  year. 
That  we  believe  because  Hippocrates  so  told 
us,  and  all  Athens  knows  Hippocrates  for  a 
truthful  man. 

Socrates — That  is  something,  for  all  truth 
is  useful;  but  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be 
such  a  truth  as  will  well  serve  for  a  foundation 
from  which  we  may  penetrate,  as  one  might 
say,  the  very  bowels  of  the  subjedl.  I  pray  you 
to  propound  some  other. 

PHiEDO — Truly,  Socrates,  I  cannot,  nor  can 
we  any  of  us,  for  upon  nothing  else  pertaining 
to  the  matter  are  we  able  to  agree. 

[47] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

Socrates — If  it  please  you,  then,  I  will  pro- 
pound a  saying  and  see  if  you  agree  with  me. 

Ph^edo — We  shall  be  very  glad  if  you 
will. 

Socrates — I  suggest,  then,  that  we  begin 
by  agreeing,  if  we  are  able  to  do  so,  that  the 
gods  have  given  the  earth  to  man  for  his  use. 

PHiEDO — Surely  that  seems  to  be  true. 

Socrates — I  am  glad  that  you  think  favor- 
ably of  it,  but  that  is  not  sufficient  if  we  are 
to  reason  upon  it,  because  that  upon  which  we 
found  our  argument  must  be  what  we  accept 
as  absolute  truth. 

Ph^edo — I  think  the  earth  was  made  for 
mankind,  but  if  in  our  conversation  something 
should  also  seem  true,  and  yet  contradidlory 
to  that,  I  know  not  what  I  should  think. 

Socrates — Let  us,  then,  think  of  something 
else:  The  earth  is  at  any  rate  surely  for  the 
use  of  some  beings.  The  mighty  Atlas  would 
never  sustain  it  upon  his  broad  shoulders  if  it 
did  nobody  good. 

Ph^do — That,  at  least,  is  certain,  Socrates. 

Socrates — And  it  must  be  for  beings  who 
can  make  use  of  it  and  enjoy  it. 

Ph^do — That  also  is  true. 

Socrates — And  beings  which  can  use  and 
enjoy  the  earth  must  be  living  beings. 

Ph^do — Nobody  will  deny  that. 

Socrates — And  there  are  no  living  things 

[48] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

except  the  gods,  mankind,  the  lower  animals, 
and  plants. 

Ph^do — I  agree  to  that. 

Socrates — And  it  is  plain  that  the  gods 
did  not  build  the  earth  for  themselves,  for  they 
do  not  live  upon  it,  except  on  Olympus,  and 
nowhere  does  the  earth  produce  ambrosia  and 
nectar,  which  are  the  food  of  the  gods. 

Ph^edo — That  is  true,  for  the  gods  live  in 
the  heavens  and  in  the  nether  world,  and  not 
upon  the  earth. 

Socrates — And  the  plants  do  not  use  the 
earth,  or  enjoy  it,  although  they  live  upon  it, 
but  they  are  themselves  used  and  enjoyed  by 
man  and  beasts. 

Ph^do — Certainly  the  earth  was  not  made 
for  the  plants. 

Socrates — And  surely  as  between  man 
and  the  lower  animals,  the  earth  was  intended 
for  man. 

Phvedo — Certainly,  that  is  what  we  think, 
but  I  do  not  know  what  the  lion  and  the  horse 
and  the  ox  might  say,  for  they  certainly  use 
the  earth  and  enjoy  it. 

Socrates — But  man  is  superior  to  the 
lower  animals,  and  the  superior  cannot  be  sub- 
ordinate to  the  inferior. 

Ph^do — I  do  not  know  how  we  can  tell 
which  is  superior.  The  primordial  cell  in  dif- 
ferentiating out  of  homogeneity  into  heter- 

[49] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

ogeneity  developed  different  qualities  in  differ- 
ent beings,  and  of  the  organs  integrated  from 
the  heterogeneous  elements  each  has  its  use  and 
many  are  essential  to  life.  In  man  the  brain 
is  more  powerful  than  in  the  ox,  but  in  the  ox 
the  stomach  is  more  powerful  than  the  brain, 
and  while  both  stomach  and  brain  are  necessary, 
yet  is  one  with  a  weak  brain  and  strong  stom- 
ach doubtless  happier  than  one  with  a  weak 
stomach  and  strong  brain.  Is  it  not,  then,  true 
that  the  stomach  is  nobler  than  the  brain,  and 
if  so,  then  the  pig  and  the  lion  and  the  goat, 
which  have  strong  stomachs,  nobler  than  man, 
whose  stomach  could  in  nowise  digest  carrion, 
or  alfalfa,  or  tin  cans,  and  therefore  may  it  not  be 
that  the  earth  was  made  for  the  lower  animals, 
who  can  use  more  of  its  produ6ls  than  man? 

Socrates — That  is  a  deep  thought,  O  Phae- 
do,  which  shows  that  you  are  well  up  in  your 
Spencer,  although  shy  in  your  surgery,  for  it 
is  true  that  the  stomach  has  been  removed 
from  a  man  who  lived  happy  ever  after,  while 
neither  man  nor  beast  ever  lived  a  minute  after 
his  brains  were  knocked  out;  but,  is  it  not  true 
that  it  is  by  the  fundlion  of  the  brain  that 
man  makes  his  powers  more  effedlive  than 
those  of  animals  stronger  than  he,  so  that  he 
is  able  to  bear  rule  over  all  the  lower  animals 
and  either  exterminate  them  from  the  earth 
or  make  them  to  serve  him  ? 

[50] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

Ph^do — Yes,  that  is  true. 

Socrates — And  we  cannot  say  that  the 
earth  was  made  for  beasts  which  themselves 
are  made  to  serve  the  purpose  of  man,  for  as 
plants  are  consumed  by  beasts,  so  beasts  are 
consumed  by  man  who  acquires  for  his  own 
use  and  enjoyment  whatever  power  is  gener- 
ated by  the  organs  of  all  other  living  things. 

Ph^do — That  is  true,  and  I  can  now  see 
that  the  earth  was  not  made  by  the  gods  for 
themselves,  or  for  plants  or  beasts. 

Socrates — Therefore,  it  appears  to  me  that 
it  must  have  been  made  for  man. 

Ph^edo — That  is  true,  and  I  now  agree  that 
the  earth  was  made  for  man. 

Socrates — Then,  since  we  have  found  a 
common  starting  point,  we  may  go  on  with 
our  conversation.  We  have  proved  that  the 
earth  was  made  for  man,  because  man,  by 
powers  inherent  in  himself,  can  overcome  all 
other  living  things  on  the  earth  and  subject 
them  to  his  uses. 

PHiEDO — Yes,  we  have  proved  that. 

Socrates — And  the  real  source  of  his  king- 
ship is  power. 

Ph^edo — That  must  be  true. 

Socrates — And  force  is  power  applied  to 
some  objedl,  so  that  power  and  force  may  be 
spoken  of  as  the  same  thing. 

Ph^edo — Certainly. 

[51] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

Socrates — And  where  power  lies,  there  and 
there  only  is  sovereignty,  and  where  power 
ends  sovereignty  finds  its  limit.  So  that,  for 
example,  if  the  lion  could  subdue  man  and  the 
other  animals,  the  earth  would  be  for  the  use 
of  the  lion. 

Ph^do — That  is  plain. 

Socrates — And  if  a  company  of  men  should 
find  an  island  and  go  and  live  upon  it  and  be 
strong  enough  to  subdue  the  wild  animals  and 
keep  out  other  men,  that  island  would  be  for 
their  use. 

Ph^do — That  follows,  because  sovereignty 
goes  with  power  exercised  in  force. 

Socrates — And  so  if  one  man  should  find  a 
vacant  space  and  take  possession,  it  would  be  his. 

Ph^do — That  is  true. 

Socrates — And  what  belongs  to  man,  man 
may  dispose  of  as  he  will. 

Ph^edo — All  men  agree  to  that. 

Socrates — And,  therefore,  since  Hippo- 
crates has  found  a  vacant  space  on  the  earth 
and  taken  possession  thereof,  and  no  man  dis- 
putes his  possession,  it  is  his  and  he  may  sell  it. 

Ph^do — That  is  certainly  true,  and  I  do 
not  doubt  that  Hipparchus  will  now  pay  down 
his  talent  of  silver  and  take  over  the  vale  in 
the  Olympian  forest. 

Socrates — And  if  instead  of  finding  an 
island  the  company  of  men  had  found  an  en- 

[52] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

tire  continent  it  would  be  theirs  if  they  were 
strong  enough  to  keep  it. 

PHiEDO — Surely  that  is  so,  for  power  is  but 
concentrated  ability  to  enjoy,  and  where  most 
power  lies,  there  lies  most  ability  to  enjoy,  and 
therefore  the  highest  possible  aggregate  of  hu- 
man happiness,  in  the  attainment  of  which  the 
will  of  the  gods  shall  be  done. 

Socrates — And  if  a  company  can  take  part 
of  a  continent,  but  not  the  whole,  whatever 
they  are  able  to  take  is  theirs. 

Ph^do — Undoubtedly. 

Socrates — And  what  is  theirs  is  not  the 
property  of  others. 

Ph^do — By  no  means. 

Socrates — And  if  it  does  not  belong  to 
others,  others  may  not  lawfully  use  it. 

Ph^edo — Surely  not. 

Socrates — And  they  who  do  own  it  may 
prevent  others  from  entering  it. 

Ph^do — Surely,  for  hath  not  the  poet  said: 

'That  they  shall  take  who  have  the  power. 
And  they  may  keep  who  can." 

Socrates — Therefore  it  is  plain  that  the 
United  States  may  keep  Chinamen  out  of 
America. 

Ph^do — There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it  what- 
ever. 

Socrates — And  Chinese  may  keep  Ameri- 
cans out  of  China. 

[53] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

Ph^do — That  is  another  story.  One  must 
never  let  his  logic  get  the  better  of  him. 

And  so  we  might  play  with  these  great 
subjects  forever,  with  reasoning  as  leaky  as  a 
sieve,  but  good  enough  to  catch  the  careless  or 
the  untrained. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  lectures  which 
I  ever  listened  to  was  one  before  the  Economic 
League  of  San  Francisco  on  the  "Diale6lics  of 
Socialism."  The  le6lurer  was  a  very  acute  man, 
who  would  not  for  one  moment  be  deceived  by 
the  sophistry  of  my  Socrates  and  Phaedo,  but, 
who,  himself,  made  willing  captives  of  his  hear- 
ers by  similar  methods.  I  was  unable  to  hear 
all  his  address,  but  when  I  reludlantly  left,  it 
appeared  to  me  that  he  was  expedling  to  prove 
that  Socialism  must  be  sound  philosophy  be- 
cause it  was  contradi6lory  to  all  human  obser- 
vation, experience,  judgment  and  the  di6lates 
of  sound  common  sense — and  his  large  audi- 
ence was  plainly  enough  with  him. 

The  dialedlics  of  the  schoolmen  or  their 
equivalent  are  useless  in  Social  discussion.  So- 
cial phenomena  do  not  lend  themselves  to  the 
rigorous  formulas  of  mathematics  and  logic, 
for  the  human  intelle6l  is  unable  to  discern 
and  grasp  all  the  fa6lors  of  these  problems.  My 
travesty  of  Plato  was  intended  to  illustrate  the 
difficulty  of  close  reasoning  on  such  topics. 

[54] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

Neither,  on  the  other  hand,  are  we  to  blindly 
follow  the  impulses  of  emotion  which  lead  us 
to  jump  at  a  conclusion,  support  it  with  what 
reason  we  can,  but  reach  it  in  any  event.  Emo- 
tion is  the  source  of  Social  power,  but  power 
unrestrained  and  undire6led  is  dangerous.  En- 
ergy created  by  the  sight  of  distress  must  be 
controlled  by  reason  or  it  will  not  relieve  dis- 
tress. And  by  reason  I  do  not  mean  Social 
syllogisms,  of  whose  premises  we  are  always 
uncertain,  but  conclusions  half  unconsciously 
formed  in  the  mind  as  the  result  of  human 
experience  operating  on  human  feeling — the 
pra6lical  wisdom  which  we  call  common  sense. 
Human  condu6l,  individual  and  aggregate, 
must  be  regulated  and  determined  by  the  con- 
sensus of  the  judgment  of  the  wisest  made 
efFe6live  through  its  gradual  acceptance  as  the 
judgment  of  the  majority.  Private  ownership 
of  land,  with  its  accompanying  rent,  is  justified, 
not  by  an  imaginary  inherent  right  in  the  in- 
dividual, which  has  no  real  existence  and  so 
cannot  be  conveyed,  but  because  the  interests 
of  Society  require  the  stimulus  to  effort  which 
private  ownership  and  private  ownership  only 
can  give.  And  here  I  shall  leave  this  point 
without  the  further  illustration  and  elabora- 
tion with  which  I  could  torment  you  longer 
than  you  could  keep  awake.    And  with  the 

[55] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

other  two  points  I  will  confine  myself  to  the 
most  condensed  forms  of  statement. 

Interest — Socialists  and  non-Socialists  agree 
that  what  a  man  makes  is  his.  Socialists  and 
I  agree  that  every  man  is  entitled  to  his  just 
share  of  the  Social  dividend.  I  believe,  and  in 
this  I  suppose  the  Socialists  would  agree  with 
me,  that  when  a  man  gets  his  annual  dividend 
he  may  use  it,  or  keep  it  for  future  use.  If, 
while  he  does  not  use  his  dividend,  or  the  pro- 
du6t  of  his  labor,  he  permits  others  to  use  it 
to  their  profit,  it  seems  to  me  that  he  is  entitled 
to  some  satisfadlion  in  compensation  for  his 
sacrifice.  I  believe  it  to  the  interest  of  Society 
that  he  have  it.  By  individual  thrift  Society 
accumulates,  and  it  is  wise  to  encourage  thrift. 
If  I  build  a  mill  and,  falling  sick,  cannot 
use  it,  it  is  fair  that  he  who  does  use  it  shall 
pay  me  for  my  sacrifice  in  building  it.  If  I 
forego  possible  satisfa6lions  of  any  kind,  those 
whom  I  permit  to  enjoy  them  should  recom- 
pense me.  And  that  is  interest.  Its  foundation 
as  a  right  rests  not  only  on  those  natural  sen- 
timents of  justice  with  which  the  normal  man 
everywhere  is  endowed  and  behind  which  we 
cannot  go,  but  on  the  interest  of  Society  to  en- 
courage the  creation  of  savings  funds  to  be  em- 
ployed for  the  benefit  of  Society. 

Profits — Private  profit  is  far  less  a  private 
right  than  a  public  necessity.  Its  absence  would 

[56] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

involve  a  waste  which  Society  could  not  en- 
dure. With  individual  operations  controlled  by 
fallible  men  enormous  waste  is  inevitable.  It 
is  essential  to  Society  that  this  waste  be  min- 
imized. No  industrial  or  commercial  enterprise 
can  go  on  without  risk.  Profit  is  the  compen- 
sation for  risk.  One  of  the  things  which  I  be- 
lieve, but  which  cannot  be  proved,  is  that  from 
the  dawn  of  history  losses  to  individuals  by 
which  Society  gained  have  exceeded  profits  to 
individuals,  and  the  excess  of  these  losses  is  the 
Social  accumulation,  increased,  of  course,  by 
residues  left  after  individuals  have  got  what 
they  could.  Whitney  died  poor,  but  mankind 
has  the  cotton-gin.  Bell  died  rich,  but  there  is 
a  profit  to  mankind  in  the  telephone.  Socialists 
propose  to  assume  risks  and  absorb  profits.  I 
do  not  believe  Society  could  afford  this.  I  am 
profoundly  convinced  that  under  the  Socialist 
program  the  inevitable  waste  would  be  so  enor- 
mously increased  as  to  result  in  disaster  ap- 
proaching a  Social  cataclysm.  This  is  an  old 
argument  whose  validity  Socialists  scout.  Nev- 
ertheless I  believe  it  sound.  The  number  of 
these  whose  intelle6lual  and  physical  strength 
is  sufficient  for  the  wisest  dire6lion  of  great 
enterprises  is  very  small.  Some  who  are  in- 
terested in  our  great  industrial  trusts  are  said 
to  carry  heavy  insurance  on  the  life  of  Mr. 
Morgan,  lest  he  die  and  leave  no  successor.  If 

[57] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

the  natural  ability  is  found  its  possessor  will 
probably  lack  the  knowledge  which  Mr.  Mor- 
gan* has  accumulated,  and  in  the  light  of  which 
he  diredls  his  operations.  It  is  essential  that 
great  operations — and  the  business  of  the  future 
will  be  condu6led  on  a  great  scale — be  dire6ted 
by  great  wisdom  and  power.  The  possessors  of 
high  qualities  we  now  discover  by  the  trying- 
out  process.  They  can  be  discovered  in  no 
other  way,  and  great  effort  can  be  secured  only 
by  the  hope  of  great  reward.  Until  human 
nature  changes  we  can  expedl  nothing  differ- 
ent. Socialism  implies  popular  sele6lion  of  in- 
dustrial leadership.  Wherever  tried  thus  far 
in  the  world's  history  there  has  usually  been 
abje6l  failure.  The  mass  can  choose  leaders  in 
emotion  but  not  dire6lors  of  industry.  The 
sele6lion  of  experts  by  the  non-expert  can  be 
wise  only  by  accident.  If  the  seledtion  is  not 
popular,  then  Socialism  is  tyranny,  as  its  ene- 
mies charge.  If  it  be  popular,  or  in  so  far  as  it 
is  popular,  diredlion  is  likely  to  fall  to  the  great 
persuaders  and  not  to  the  great  diredlors.  Nev- 
er did  a  "people  s  party"  yet  escape  the  control 
of  the  unscrupulous.  No  political  movements 
result  in  so  much  political  and  Social  rascality 
as  so-called  popular  movements  originated  by 
earnest  and  honest  men.    I  see  no  reason  to 

*This  was  written  and  originally  printed  long  before  the 
death  of  Mr.  Morgan,  but  there  is  a  general  feeling  that  he  has 
left  no  successor  of  his  caliber. 

[58] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

suppose  that  the  Socialistic  dire6tion  of  indus- 
trial affairs  in  any  city  would  be  dire6led  from 
any  other  source  than  the  back  rooms  of  the 
saloons  where  political  movements  are  now 
shaped.  If  the  Socialistic  program  were  to  go 
into  effe6l  to-morrow  morning  there  would  be 
here  to-night  neither  le6lurer  nor  audience. 
The  good  dinner  would  remain  untasted  in  the 
ovens.  Every  mortal  soul  of  us  would  be  scoot- 
ing from  one  Social  magnate  to  another  to  as- 
sure that  we  were  on  the  slate  for  the  soft 
jobs  and  that  nobody  was  crowding  us  off.  I 
have  no  faith  in  human  nature  except  as  it  is 
constantly  strengthened  and  purified  by  strug- 
gle. That  struggle  is  an  irrepressible  confli6l 
existing  in  all  nature,  and  from  which  man 
cannot  escape.  It  is  better  for  mankind  that  it 
go  on  openly  and  in  more  or  less  accord  with 
known  rules  of  warfare  than  in  the  secret  con- 
spiring chambers  of  the  class  which  in  the  end 
controls  popular  movement.  All  serious  con- 
fli6l  involves  evil,  but  it  is  also  strengthening 
to  the  race.  I  wish  misery  could  be  banished 
from  the  world,  but  I  fear  that  it  cannot  be  so 
banished.  I  have  little  confidence  in  human 
ability  to  so  thoroughly  comprehend  the  struc- 
ture and  fun6lions  of  the  Social  body  as  to 
corre6lly  fortell  the  steps  in  its  evolution,  or 
prescribe  constitutional  remedies  which  will 
banish  Social  disease.    If  I  were  a  Social  re- 

[59] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

former — and  were  I  with  my  present  knowl- 
edge still  an  ingenuous  youth  in  the  fulness  of 
strength  with  my  life  before  me  I  do  not  know 
that  I  would  not  be  a  Social  reformer — I  would 
profess  myself  a  Social  agnostic,  and  prosecute 
my  mission  by  the  methods  of  the  opportunist. 
I  would  endeavor  to  dire6l  the  Social  ax  to  the 
most  obvious  and  obtrusive  roots  of  the  Social 
evil,  and  having  removed  them  and  watched 
the  result,  would  then  determine  what  to  do 
next.  Possibly  I  would  endeavor  to  begin  with 
the  abolition  of  wills  and  collateral  inheritance, 
and  so  limiting  dire6l  inheritance  that  no  man 
able  to  work  should  escape  its  necessity  by 
reason  of  the  labor  of  his  forefathers.  I  might 
say  that  I  recognized  the  vested  rights  of  the 
Astors  to  the  soil  on  Manhattan  Island,  but 
that  I  recognized  no  right  as  vested  in  beings  yet 
unborn.  I  might  say  that  it  was  sufficient  stim- 
ulation and  reward  for  the  most  eminent  Social 
endeavor  to  select,  within  reason,  the  objects 
of  public  utility  to  which  resulting  accumula- 
tions should  be  applied  and  to  superintend  dur- 
ing one's  lifetime  their  application  to  those 
purposes.  I  might  think  in  this  way,  and  might 
not,  were  I  an  enthusiastic  Social  reformer  in 
the  heyday  of  youth,  but  it  appears  to  me  now 
that  at  any  rate  we  shall  make  most  progress 
toward  ultimate  universal  happiness  if  we  rec- 
ognize that  out  of  the  increasing  strenuousness 

[60] 


A  Critique  of  Socialism 

of  our  conflidl  there  is  coming  constantly  in- 
creasing comfort  and  better  division  thereof, 
and  if  we  dire6l  that  portion  of  our  energies 
which  we  devote  to  the  service  of  mankind 
toward  such  changes  in  the  dire6lion  of  the 
Social  impulse  as  can  be  made  without  impair- 
ing the  force  of  the  evolutionary  movement, 
rather  than  to  those  which  involve  the  reversal 
of  the  dire6lion  of  the  force  with  the  resulting 
danger  of  explosion  and  collapse. 


[61] 


HERE  ENDS  THE  INHUMANITY  OF  SOCIALISM,  BEING 
TWO  PAPERS-THE  CASE  AGAINST  SOCIALISM  AND 
A  CRITIQUE  OF  SOCIALISM-BY  EDWARD  F.  ADAMS. 
PUBLISHED  BY  PAUL  ELDER  AND  COMPANY  AT  THEIR 
TOMOYE  PRESS,  IN  THE  CITY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO,  AND 
SEEN  THROUGH  THE  PRESS  BY  JOHN  SWART,  IN  THE 
MONTH  OF  JUNE,  NINETEEN  HUNDRED  ^  THIRTEEN 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


DEC  3  0  IMI 
JUN  1  9  1951 


JUN   4 


f  '  ,  (.:«&«'\ 


W 


^fCl41984 


fiJP^ 


A98i 


Form  L-S 

20m-l,' 41(1152) 


^AummM- 


'j*'»iWiH^^^^^^ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  406  615    5 


